First of all just let me say that the hostility of these forums continues to escalate, which I find sad. Whereas I might be sarcastic on occasion, I am fully aware that we are all just spectators here, making suggestions. To dismiss another fan's ideas as silly, to argue about how to spell artifact/artefact or to point out that a tower cap has spawn (rather than a seed, despite the fact that that seed is the item category it would belong to) is bickering about minutiae rather than actually hammering out an idea.
Everything I have posted thus far has been strictly a work in progress, and if you find weakness in these ideas, please feel free to improve upon them. To do otherwise defeats the goal of the OP.
So back on topic:
I never suggested a fey miner should find a pile of rubies nor did I suggest the miner finding a vein of adamantium. To clarify: What I was suggesting is that a fey miner (instead of creating a stone trinket which is infinitely less coherent) might find a vein of sphalerite in a non-metamorphic stone layer. This would possibly provide a resource (and a very dwarvenly one) that was lacking from the site. If you dislike the specifics, provide a better one.
By the same token, an fey engraver should make a legendary engraving, rather than a mug.
A fey ambusher running off-screen and returning with a megabeast skin was not my suggestion, but rather a derivation of my suggestion by Wolfius. In the spirit of working together, I adopted the concept in later posts as an expedient. I would much rather actually have the ranger fight the beast, and possibly die. You must admit, that a dwarf hunter making a cloak out of named beast it killed is no more whimsical than a miner chipping out a crown with his pick ax.
A farmer gaining access to an unknown plant is not merely a matter of luck. I would so love to grow an avocado in my yard, but the climate here is wrong for it. However, given enough time, I could probably breed a strain that would (albeit probably not a healthy, tasteful fruit). By the same token merely having access to a tower cap SPAWN (happy?) does not guarantee that one can cultivate it. To go the way of Mendel, would it not be an aspect of skill to produce a strain of quarry bush that grows in winter, or a wild strawberry adapted to subterranean cultivation? Again, if you can improve the idea, do so.
I do agree that in the common culture, dwarves are a race of craftwork. I would not like to see that diluted to such an extent that they lose that identity. However, this can be alleviated, and room made for these suggestions, by simply weighting the frequency. Crafts dwarves are known for (mining, stonework, smithing) could just be more frequent, with the support skills (farming, fishing, weaving) being likewise less frequent.
It makes no sense to me what-so-ever that in my fort I have perhaps 10 legendary woodcrafters, almost as many bonecrafters, and several legendary tanners. In the same fort ONE of my smiths has gone fey ( out of 8 ) and that it is dubbed silly that I might suggest that one of my farmers, my hunter, my wood cutter, or perhaps even my <gasp> architect might go fey and craft an artifact suitable to their profession.
This is most clearly evidenced by looking at child prodigies (children going fey). In the current fort I have had three: All woodcrafters.
Does suggesting this needs revision so seriously undermine the game concept? Perhaps you have better suggestions?
Author
Topic: Strange moods should not result in so many craftsdwarves (Read 3320 times)